George W. Bush and Tony Blair guilty of war crimes, including genocide; WANTED

George W. Bush and Tony Blair guilty of war crimes, mass murder; WANTED

Tue Nov 22, 2011 6:51PM
Mahi Ramakrishnan, Press TV, Kuala Lumpur

A Malaysian tribunal has found former US President George W Bush and former British Prime Minister Tony Blair guilty of committing crimes against humanity during the Iraq war, Press TV reported.

The Kuala Lumpur War Crimes Tribunal found the former heads of state guilty after a four-day hearing. A seven-member panel chaired by former Malaysian Federal Court judge Abdul Kadir Sulaiman presided over the trial.

The five panel tribunal unanimously decided that the former US and British leaders had committed crimes against peace and humanity, and also violated international law when they ordered the invasion of Iraq in March 2003.

The prosecutors at the hearing ruled that the invasion of Iraq was a flagrant abuse of law, and act of aggression which amounted to a mass murder of the Iraqi people.

“Bush and Blair are found guilty under the same law that applied to the Nazis after the end of the World War II. So, they are international (war) criminals guilty of Nuremberg crimes against peace; and they should be prosecuted by any state in the world that gets a hold of them. We will continue our efforts to bring Bush and Blair to justice and put them in jail,” Francis Boyle, an international law expert and prosecutor, told Press TV.

The judges in the verdict said that that the United States, under the leadership of Bush, forged documents to claim that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction.

Bush and Blair were tried in absentia by the Kuala Lumpur War Crimes Tribunal at the end of the hearing. The participants also demanded that the findings of the tribunal be made available to members of the Rome Statute and that the names of the two former officials be entered in the register of war criminals.

“There is also a recommendation that this (the findings) be circulated to the states because all states have universal jurisdiction. Therefore, whenever Bush or Blair appear within their shores there is an obligation on the international law to commit these international war criminals through the justice system,” Gurdial Singh Nijar, a prosecutor, told Press TV.

Lawyers and human rights activists in Malaysia have described the verdict issued by the Kuala Lumpur War Crimes Tribunal against Bush and Blair as “a landmark decision.”

They say that they would lobby the International Criminal Court to charge the pair for war crimes.

The Kuala Lumpur War Crimes Tribunal is scheduled to hold a separate hearing next year on charges of torture linked to the Iraq war against former US officials including ex-Vice President Dick Cheney, former Secretary of State Donald Rumsfeld and ex-Attorney General Alberto Gonzales.

In that respect, anyone who has ever sat on a throne or was appointed head of their government and actively participated in furthering a war in their own country or anywhere in the World would also be guilty of war crimes and acts against humanity.

No one has yet proven to me that humans are as intelligent as everyone claims us to be.

Yeah.. There's the truth, then there's the balance and idealism we have in the world. Or something like that. We're defiantly not ready to be accountable 100% for our actions. Especially making a powerhouse like a nation accountable 100% for their actions. We kinda just go with the flow, accept the actions that contradict the standing points of the nation and keep on going. If america was actually held accountable for her actions, the domino effect of that would be .. interesting. There's really no core nation or organisation that has the "moral or ethical" right to judge and impose the appriopriate actions. We're intelligent but we're stubborn too.

What about when Saddam invaded Kuwait in August 1990? Was that against international law?

Or when Iraq and Iran went to war in the 1980's?

Or what about when the Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan in late 1979?

I'm sure there're a long list of wars that I could refer to here.

What's special about Operation Iraqi Freedom to make it worthy of war crimes?

How can they claim Bush/Blair are guilty of war crimes, but not Saddam (circa. 2003)?

Saddam killed many numbers of Kurds and Iranian troops with WMD during the Iran/Iraq war.

Even though the evidence used by the Bush administration was faulty, there's still a history of evidence to show us that Iraq was unstable and that Saddam is not to be trusted. If we had a truly honest UN, Saddam would have been tried for War Crimes in the 1990's and, assuming he resisted, coalition forces would have bombed Iraq until he was killed or apprehended and brought to court.

IMHO, they used Saddam to make life hard for Iran (Iran was hating the US at that time; we needed to keep them busy). But it was wrong. We changed our tune quickly within a few short years.

All of the major powers in this world have been fighting proxy wars for the past 100 years. The US is just as guilty as any other, in this regard. We actively supported the insurgency in Afghanistan to oppose the invasion of Soviet troops. Many US leaders spoke out against the Soviet Union during this time. Every other nation on earth has, in one way or another, been involved in one or more wars through proxy channels.

Additionally, most of the (iraqi) insurgents in Operation Iraqi Freedom were using RUSSIAN-made weapons. Furthermore, Russia is standing behind Syria right now in direct contrast to the US. China could be talked about too. If this doesn't clue you into what's going on underneath the obvious, you're blind.

Additionally, most of the (iraqi) insurgents in Operation Iraqi Freedom were using RUSSIAN-made weapons. Furthermore, Russia is standing behind Syria right now in direct contrast to the US. China could be talked about too. If this doesn't clue you into what's going on underneath the obvious, you're blind.

Click to expand...

What's going on underneath the surface? You obviously seem to know. It's not fair to assume someone is blind for not understanding this.

What about when Saddam invaded Kuwait in August 1990? Was that against international law?

Or when Iraq and Iran went to war in the 1980's?

Or what about when the Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan in late 1979?

I'm sure there're a long list of wars that I could refer to here.

What's special about Operation Iraqi Freedom to make it worthy of war crimes?

How can they claim Bush/Blair are guilty of war crimes, but not Saddam (circa. 2003)?

Saddam killed many numbers of Kurds and Iranian troops with WMD during the Iran/Iraq war.

Even though the evidence used by the Bush administration was faulty, there's still a history of evidence to show us that Iraq was unstable and that Saddam is not to be trusted. If we had a truly honest UN, Saddam would have been tried for War Crimes in the 1990's and, assuming he resisted, coalition forces would have bombed Iraq until he was killed or apprehended and brought to court.

Click to expand...

Saddam was tried from 2004-2006 and executed by hanging in 2006. The topic that this article is about is a tribunal accusing the previous US President and former British PM of war crimes as they are still alive and well. But yes, any kind of formal adjudication of Blair or Bush is probably not going to happen.

To compare them to the Nazi's shows how weak their arguement is. Don't they say when Hitler is brought in to back up a point you have lost the arguement?

The Nazi's invaded to occupy, for lebensraum. It is not even similar in the slightest!

Anyway on another note I am disappointed with Blair's lack of back bone, its how we ended up with where we are. Blair wasn't a bad PM til that war, infact he was voted in the top 10 Brits of all time at one period, now he'd not get anywhere near. The back bone point I am on about is because Blair had managed to get Bush and the US to delay the war! He had bought the UN weapon hunters time, if it was up to Bush we would have just charged in. But unfortunately the military planners gave a deadline to attack as they say we couldn't have went to war in a particular season. So when Bush said we have to go now, instead of Blair saying there are 1 million people lining the streets of London saying no, the UN are saying no, instead of this he bottled it and went. The rest is history.

Overall the only crime would be that there weren't any WMD, unless you can prove they knew this before hand there is no internationally legal case for any war crime what so ever.